Asim Kumar Vs Union of India And Another (Punjab And Haryana High Court)
The petitioner sought regular bail during the pendency of trial in a complaint filed under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and related provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that inspections and searches conducted at the premises of the petitioner’s firm revealed that the premises were non-operational and that goods found during the search were unsupported by purchase invoices, e-way bills, or other relevant documents. The goods were seized, and the petitioner’s statement was recorded. It was further alleged that the petitioner fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹66.60 crore and passed on fraudulent ITC of ₹766.64 crore through bogus invoices without actual supply of goods or services. The petitioner was arrested on 21 February 2025.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and that the offences under the CGST Act were compoundable under Section 138. He contended that the statutory requirements regarding arrest were not properly followed and that he had remained in custody for over fourteen months without significant progress in the trial. It was also submitted that no further recovery was required from him, that the maximum punishment prescribed was five years, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that the complaint had already been filed. The petitioner further pointed out that three of the four accused persons in the case had already been granted bail and that the prosecution case was based mainly on documentary and electronic evidence.
